On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:03 AM Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> > Long story short: My suggestion is and has always been to map bays with > > nodes in those cases where this - together with the coastline - > > perfectly documents the verifiable information available on the > > geometry of the bay. > > Agree on the node idea, but it would have to include some size signifier > (and I think someone recently tried to add a "sqm" tag to water body > nodes for that purpose which I also criticised...). I don't think you > are recommending a relation that includes the actual coastline and the > label node, but if you do then I am against that because I don't want > every coastline to be part of 10 relations in the end. > > Using point features alone defeats any attempt to do more sophisticated label shaping than current Mapnik is capable of rendering. Using coarse labeling polygons replaces the problem of having a shoreline participate in multiple relations with the problem of having multiple inaccurate representations of the same shoreline all running approximately parallel. I can't see how that's any easier to manage. Moreover, it defeats any sort of analysis that depends on adjacency. "The shoreline of the Gulf of Bothnia" becomes a meaningless idea in that data model - it's just another part of the coastline of Europe, with no reliable way of identifying that Oulu is on that particular shoreline while Helsinki and Tallinn are not. (I intentionally choose cases where ambiguity about the mouth of the bay is not relevant.) If the relation includes the actual boundaries (while having to be somewhat arbitrary about indefinite ones), there's no need for a label node. Label nodes that have the mapper identify where to put the label on an area feature have no purpose other than label painting. They have no existence in the field. They are purely tagging for the renderer. Also, once again, could I ask you to make it clear whether you're expressing your opinion or an official position of the DWG or the OSMF? The fact that you deleted the relation - whcih, as you observe, some mapper put some very careful work into - suggests that you are indeed expressing an official position. If it is an official position, I think the community is owed a clearer statement of what the rules are - because the introductory material on the Wiki appears very much to diverge from how the project is actually being run. If I'm going to contribute to the map, I need some reasonable likelihood that all my work won't be reverted because it offends against rules that I do not comprehend. Reading the available documentation has offered very little enlightenment. I know that I've placed things in the map with which you personally disagreed vehemently. In particular, I've performed a couple of imports that you thought were entirely unwarranted - although by the end of the discussion, the argument that was left standing was simply the still-controversial one that imports always have a greater negative effect on the community than the value of the imported data. After discussions on talk-us and imports, you had the restraint not to revert the actual imported data. Now you appear to be taking pride in what appears (without researching the history) to be an arbitrary revert of a mapper's attempt to curate the data manually, in a way that appears to comport with OSM's multipolygon model but offends you because of opening the door to having a way be a member of too many relations. In the absence of a more formal guideline, I'm not really sure what to think, and wonder what among the objects that I've mapped might be at risk.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging